TO BE PUBLISHED
2018-SC-000647-KB
LEAH STACY FINK MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Leah Stacy Fink1 received a two-count charge of professional misconduct
stemming from two separate felony drug offense convictions in Clark County,
Indiana and Harrison County, Indiana. Fink was convicted in both cases and
was sentenced to eight years and one and one-half years in prison,
respectively, to run consecutively. The KBA charge accuses Fink of violating
SCR 3.130(8.4)(b). In the face of this charge, Fink moves this Court to enter an
order accepting her Motion for Consensual Discipline, and the KBA makes no
objection to the motion.
1 KBA Member Number 83980, bar roster address 480 East Ridge Road SE, Corydon, IN 47112, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 17, 1991. I. KBA PILE 20109.
The first of the two-count KBA charge relates to a 2011 Harrison County,
Indiana, criminal case. On August 15, 2011, a confidential informant working
for the local Sheriffs Department conducted a controlled drug buy from Jeremy
Ripperdan, Fink’s then-boyfriend, which took place at Fink’s house. After the
transaction, a search warrant was executed on Fink’s house, and equipment
used in the manufacture of methamphetamine was discovered. Both Fink and
Ripperdan were arrested.
Fink was charged in Harrison County, Indiana with dealing
methamphetamine, a Class B felony; possession of methamphetamine, a Class
D felony; maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony; unlawful
possession of syringe, a Class D felony; possession of two or more pre-cursors,
a Class D felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of
marijuana, both Class A misdemeanors.
On August 20, 2015, Fink was found guilty of all counts by a juiy and
was sentenced to serve eight years in the Indiana Department of corrections.
Fink exhausted the appeals process and her conviction was upheld. Fink’s
sentence was modified in December of 2016 so that the remaining balance
would be served on home detention, which concluded on February 21, 2018.
Fink remains on probation, which will conclude on Februaiy 21, 2020.
The second count relates to a 2014 Clark County, Indiana, criminal case
in which Fink was indicted for drug-related offenses while she was awaiting
trial on the Harrison County charges. In June of 2014, the Jeffersonville Police
Department executed a search warrant on a house in which Ripperdan, who
2 had recently reconnected with Fink, was temporarily living. After discovering
what was believed to be an active meth lab in a detached garage, officers were
informed by a neighbor that a cooler in the backyard contained additional
methamphetamine making materials and that the materials had exploded in
the trunk of a car located in the driveway which belonged to Fink. Officers
searched the trunk and discovered numerous items used to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Fink acknowledged that she should not have had contact with
Ripperdan, given the conditions of her bond in the Harrison County case. She
maintains, however, that she was letting Ripperdan borrow her car at the time
the items were discovered and that she was unaware that Ripperdan was using
her car to transport drug-related items.
On June 17, 2014, Fink was indicted on charges of manufacturing
methamphetamine, a Class B felony; possession of methamphetamine
precursors, a Class D felony; and Maintaining a Common Nuisance, a Class D
felony. However, Fink pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a common
nuisance, and the remaining counts were dismissed by agreement. Fink was
sentenced to one and one-half years’ incarceration, which was later modified to
nine months of home incarceration, set to conclude in November of 2018.
Because of her August 20, 2015, conviction, Fink has been on automatic
temporary suspension from the practice of law in Kentucky. Fink was placed
on temporary suspension in Indiana on January 8, 2015, and resigned from
the Indiana Bar in August of 2015.
3 Both counts of the KBA charge allege violations of SCR 3.130(8.4)(b),
which states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects . . . .” Fink violated this rule, in both
counts, when she committed the criminal acts that led to her convictions in
both the Harrison County and Clark County cases.
II. ANALYSIS.
Fink admits that she is guilty of the above ethical violations and moves
this Court to accept her Motion for Consensual Discipline. She urges us to
enter an Order suspending her license to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for a period of five years, retroactive from August 20, 2015, or until
she has satisfied the terms of her criminal probation in Indiana, whichever
occurs first. The KBA has no objection to Fink’s Motion for Consensual
Discipline and requests that we order the proposed discipline.
In support of her Motion, Fink has provided proof of significant
mitigating circumstances. Fink has suffered significant health problems that
caused her to undergo numerous and frequent surgeries spanning from 1995
through March of 2015. In addition, Fink has shown her commitment to
rehabilitation from drug addiction through a successful treatment program, her
ongoing cooperation with Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (“KYLAP”), and
attendance at AA meetings. Fink has also been consistently employed as a legal
assistant in accordance with SCR 3.130(5.7) and had no record of disciplinary
conduct prior to the instant criminal proceedings.
4 The KBA cites us to analogous case law in support of the proposed
discipline. First, in Kentucky Bar Association v. Embry,2 Joel Embiy pleaded
guilty to second degree manslaughter and first-degree possession of a
controlled substance.3 An investigation into his mother’s death had uncovered
that she was living in deplorable conditions in Embry’s home, as well as
evidence of his drug use.4 Like Fink, Embiy showed extensive mitigation, had
no disciplinary history, and agreed to cooperate with KYLAP. Embry admitted
to violating SCR 3.130 (8.3)(b),5 and received a five-year suspension.6
In Bertram v. Kentucky Bar Association,7 Bertram was charged with a
second felony case in 2003 after being temporarily suspended for a criminal
conviction in 2002, all for drug-related offenses.8 Bertram agreed to
cooperating with KYLAP and the parties agreed to a suspension for five years or
until Bertram’s criminal probation ended whichever occurred first.9
Finally, in Wade v. Kentucky Bar Association,10 Wade entered into two
felony diversions—one related to his representation of a client where he
admitted to violating SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 8.4(b) and (c); the other
2 152 S.W.3d 869 (Ky. 2005). 3 Id. at 870. 4 Id. at 871. 5 That rule is now SCR 3.130(8.4)(b). 6 152 S.W.3d at 871-72. 7 126 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. 2004). 8 Id. at 358-59. 9 Id. at 359.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TO BE PUBLISHED
2018-SC-000647-KB
LEAH STACY FINK MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Leah Stacy Fink1 received a two-count charge of professional misconduct
stemming from two separate felony drug offense convictions in Clark County,
Indiana and Harrison County, Indiana. Fink was convicted in both cases and
was sentenced to eight years and one and one-half years in prison,
respectively, to run consecutively. The KBA charge accuses Fink of violating
SCR 3.130(8.4)(b). In the face of this charge, Fink moves this Court to enter an
order accepting her Motion for Consensual Discipline, and the KBA makes no
objection to the motion.
1 KBA Member Number 83980, bar roster address 480 East Ridge Road SE, Corydon, IN 47112, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 17, 1991. I. KBA PILE 20109.
The first of the two-count KBA charge relates to a 2011 Harrison County,
Indiana, criminal case. On August 15, 2011, a confidential informant working
for the local Sheriffs Department conducted a controlled drug buy from Jeremy
Ripperdan, Fink’s then-boyfriend, which took place at Fink’s house. After the
transaction, a search warrant was executed on Fink’s house, and equipment
used in the manufacture of methamphetamine was discovered. Both Fink and
Ripperdan were arrested.
Fink was charged in Harrison County, Indiana with dealing
methamphetamine, a Class B felony; possession of methamphetamine, a Class
D felony; maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony; unlawful
possession of syringe, a Class D felony; possession of two or more pre-cursors,
a Class D felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of
marijuana, both Class A misdemeanors.
On August 20, 2015, Fink was found guilty of all counts by a juiy and
was sentenced to serve eight years in the Indiana Department of corrections.
Fink exhausted the appeals process and her conviction was upheld. Fink’s
sentence was modified in December of 2016 so that the remaining balance
would be served on home detention, which concluded on February 21, 2018.
Fink remains on probation, which will conclude on Februaiy 21, 2020.
The second count relates to a 2014 Clark County, Indiana, criminal case
in which Fink was indicted for drug-related offenses while she was awaiting
trial on the Harrison County charges. In June of 2014, the Jeffersonville Police
Department executed a search warrant on a house in which Ripperdan, who
2 had recently reconnected with Fink, was temporarily living. After discovering
what was believed to be an active meth lab in a detached garage, officers were
informed by a neighbor that a cooler in the backyard contained additional
methamphetamine making materials and that the materials had exploded in
the trunk of a car located in the driveway which belonged to Fink. Officers
searched the trunk and discovered numerous items used to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Fink acknowledged that she should not have had contact with
Ripperdan, given the conditions of her bond in the Harrison County case. She
maintains, however, that she was letting Ripperdan borrow her car at the time
the items were discovered and that she was unaware that Ripperdan was using
her car to transport drug-related items.
On June 17, 2014, Fink was indicted on charges of manufacturing
methamphetamine, a Class B felony; possession of methamphetamine
precursors, a Class D felony; and Maintaining a Common Nuisance, a Class D
felony. However, Fink pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a common
nuisance, and the remaining counts were dismissed by agreement. Fink was
sentenced to one and one-half years’ incarceration, which was later modified to
nine months of home incarceration, set to conclude in November of 2018.
Because of her August 20, 2015, conviction, Fink has been on automatic
temporary suspension from the practice of law in Kentucky. Fink was placed
on temporary suspension in Indiana on January 8, 2015, and resigned from
the Indiana Bar in August of 2015.
3 Both counts of the KBA charge allege violations of SCR 3.130(8.4)(b),
which states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects . . . .” Fink violated this rule, in both
counts, when she committed the criminal acts that led to her convictions in
both the Harrison County and Clark County cases.
II. ANALYSIS.
Fink admits that she is guilty of the above ethical violations and moves
this Court to accept her Motion for Consensual Discipline. She urges us to
enter an Order suspending her license to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for a period of five years, retroactive from August 20, 2015, or until
she has satisfied the terms of her criminal probation in Indiana, whichever
occurs first. The KBA has no objection to Fink’s Motion for Consensual
Discipline and requests that we order the proposed discipline.
In support of her Motion, Fink has provided proof of significant
mitigating circumstances. Fink has suffered significant health problems that
caused her to undergo numerous and frequent surgeries spanning from 1995
through March of 2015. In addition, Fink has shown her commitment to
rehabilitation from drug addiction through a successful treatment program, her
ongoing cooperation with Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (“KYLAP”), and
attendance at AA meetings. Fink has also been consistently employed as a legal
assistant in accordance with SCR 3.130(5.7) and had no record of disciplinary
conduct prior to the instant criminal proceedings.
4 The KBA cites us to analogous case law in support of the proposed
discipline. First, in Kentucky Bar Association v. Embry,2 Joel Embiy pleaded
guilty to second degree manslaughter and first-degree possession of a
controlled substance.3 An investigation into his mother’s death had uncovered
that she was living in deplorable conditions in Embry’s home, as well as
evidence of his drug use.4 Like Fink, Embiy showed extensive mitigation, had
no disciplinary history, and agreed to cooperate with KYLAP. Embry admitted
to violating SCR 3.130 (8.3)(b),5 and received a five-year suspension.6
In Bertram v. Kentucky Bar Association,7 Bertram was charged with a
second felony case in 2003 after being temporarily suspended for a criminal
conviction in 2002, all for drug-related offenses.8 Bertram agreed to
cooperating with KYLAP and the parties agreed to a suspension for five years or
until Bertram’s criminal probation ended whichever occurred first.9
Finally, in Wade v. Kentucky Bar Association,10 Wade entered into two
felony diversions—one related to his representation of a client where he
admitted to violating SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 8.4(b) and (c); the other
2 152 S.W.3d 869 (Ky. 2005). 3 Id. at 870. 4 Id. at 871. 5 That rule is now SCR 3.130(8.4)(b). 6 152 S.W.3d at 871-72. 7 126 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. 2004). 8 Id. at 358-59. 9 Id. at 359. 10 498 S.W.3d 783 (Ky. 2016). 5 for drug offenses, where he admitted to again violating SCR 3.130(8.4)(b).11
Like Fink, Wade showed commitment to treating his alcohol and drug
addiction.12 Wade was suspended by negotiated sanctions for four years and
six months, retroactive from the date of his automatic suspension, or until he
satisfied the terms of his pretrial diversions, whichever occurred last.13
After reviewing the allegations, Fink’s previous disciplinary record, her
willingness to cooperate with KYLAP, her consistent employment, and the cases
cited by Bar Counsel, this Court concludes that the discipline proposed by
Fink, and agreed to by the KBA, is appropriate. Accordingly, we grant Fink’s
Motion.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1) Movant, Leah Stacy Fink, KBA Number 83980, 480 East Ridge Road SE,
Corydon, IN 47112, is adjudged guilty of violating SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) as
charged in KBA File 20109;
2) Fink is suspended from the practice of law for five years, retroactive from
August 20, 2015, or until she has satisfied in full the terms and
conditions of the criminal proceedings in the Harrison County Court,
Indiana, set out in Count 1 of the Charge, whichever event first occurs;
3) Fink must continue participation in KYLAP, on such terms and
conditions as KYLAP may determine, and must execute, and maintain in
effect, a release in favor of the Office of Bar Counsel so that the Office of
11 Id. at 784. 12 Id. at 785. 13 Id. 6 Bar Counsel may obtain status report information concerning Fink’s
participation in KYLAP;
4) In the event Fink violates the terms of her criminal probation, the Office
of Bar Counsel may seek to revoke the disciplinary suspension imposed
and may seek the permanent disbarment of Fink;
5) As required by SCR 3.390, Fink must, if she has not already done so,
within 10 days after issuance of this order of suspension from the
practice of law for more than 60 days, notify, by letter duly placed with
the United States Postal Service, all courts or other tribunals in which
she has matters pending, and all clients of her inability to represent
them and of the necessity and urgency to promptly obtain new counsel.
Fink must simultaneously provide a copy of all such letters of
notification to the Office of Bar Counsel. Fink shall immediately cancel
any pending advertisements, to the extent possible, and must terminate
any advertising activity for the duration of the term of suspension;
6) Fink is instructed promptly to take all reasonable steps to protect the
interests of her clients. She must not, during the term of suspension,
accept new clients or collect unearned fees, and she shall comply with
the provisions of SCR 3.130-7.50(5);
7 7) Fink must pay the costs of these proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.450.
Minton, C.J.; Hughes, Keller, Lambert, VanMeter and Wright, JJ., sitting.
All concur.
ENTERED: Februaiy 14, 2019.